agentleFS
Kastalien-ResearchKastalien-Research/thoughtbox/.agents/skills/workflows-plan/SKILL.md

workflows-plan

Skill64 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Transform spec (with frontmatter claims) into an implementation plan with task decomposition and sub-agent assignment. Stage 3 of the development workflow.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈11

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Create an implementation plan for: $ARGUMENTS

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    If pre-conditions are not met, report what's missing and halt.

    line 21
  3. Distinctive:

    Read the spec (frontmatter + body) from Stage 2, then investigate the codebase:

    line 27
  4. Distinctive:

    Map the affected code: Use Glob/Grep to find files that will need changes

    line 31
  5. Distinctive:

    Check for prior learnings: Search agent memory and compound learnings for relevant patterns

    line 32
  6. Very specific:

    Write the plan to .workflow/plan.md:

    line 67
  7. Distinctive:

    Wait for user approval before proceeding.

    line 118
  8. Distinctive:

    Do NOT start implementing during planning — that's Stage 4's job

    line 145
  9. Distinctive:

    Do NOT create tasks smaller than one meaningful commit

    line 146
  10. Distinctive:

    Do NOT create tasks larger than one sub-agent can handle in a single session

    line 147
  11. Distinctive:

    Do NOT skip codebase investigation — plans based on assumptions fail

    line 148
  12. Distinctive:

    Do NOT ignore the ADR's hypotheses — the plan must be designed to test them

    line 149

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Create an implementation plan for: $ARGUMENTS

Purpose

You are executing Stage 3 (Planning) of the development workflow. The spec with frontmatter claims exists from Stage 2. Your job is to decompose the work into sub-agent-sized tasks, identify dependencies, and produce a plan file that Stage 4 can execute.

Pre-Conditions

Before starting, verify:

  1. .workflow/state.json exists and currentStage is "planning"
  2. A spec exists (check stages.dev-docs.artifacts.spec in state)
  3. Spec frontmatter includes at least one claim (check stages.dev-docs.artifacts.spec in state)

If pre-conditions are not met, report what's missing and halt.

Process

Step 1: Gather Context

Read the spec (frontmatter + body) from Stage 2, then investigate the codebase:

  1. Read the spec: Understand what needs to be built
  2. Read spec claims: Understand falsifiable claims and required evidence
  3. Map the affected code: Use Glob/Grep to find files that will need changes
  4. Check for prior learnings: Search agent memory and compound learnings for relevant patterns
  5. Check existing tests: Identify test files that will need updates

Step 2: Decompose into Tasks

Break the implementation into discrete, sub-agent-sized units of work. Each task must be:

  • Atomic: One task = one logical change = one commit
  • Testable: Each task has clear acceptance criteria
  • Ordered: Dependencies between tasks are explicit

For each task, define:

### Task N: <title>

**Files**: [list of files to create/modify]
**Depends on**: [task numbers, or "none"]
**Acceptance criteria**:
- [ ] [specific, verifiable condition]
- [ ] [specific, verifiable condition]

**Notes**: [implementation hints, gotchas from codebase investigation]

Step 3: Identify Risks

For each task, flag:

  • Files with high churn or complexity
  • Areas where the spec's assumptions may not hold
  • External dependencies or integration points
  • Tests that may need significant rework

Step 4: Write the Plan File

Write the plan to .workflow/plan.md:

# Implementation Plan: <title>

**Workflow**: <id>
**Spec**: <spec path>
**ADR**: <adr path>
**Branch**: <branch>
**Created**: <ISO timestamp>

## Overview

[1-2 paragraph summary of what's being built and the approach]

## Task Breakdown

[Task definitions from Step 2]

## Dependency Graph

[Simple text diagram showing task ordering]

## Risks

[From Step 3]

## Estimated Scope

- Tasks: N
- Files affected: N
- New files: N
- Tests to write: N

Step 5: Get User Approval

Present the plan summary and ask the user to approve:

PLAN READY FOR REVIEW
======================

<title>
Tasks: N | Files: N | Risks: N flagged

[task list with 1-line summaries]

Approve this plan? (The conductor will dispatch /workflows-work to execute it)

Wait for user approval before proceeding.

Step 6: Record and Handoff

After user approves:

  1. Update workflow state (.workflow/state.json):
    • Set stages.planning.status to "completed"
    • Set stages.planning.completedAt to current ISO timestamp
    • Set stages.planning.artifacts.plan to .workflow/plan.md
    • Set currentStage to "implementation"
    • Update updatedAt
  2. Present the handoff:
    PLANNING COMPLETE
    ==================
    
    Plan: .workflow/plan.md
    Tasks: N
    Dependencies: [summary]
    
    Next: Stage 4 - Implementation (/workflows-work)

Anti-Patterns

  • Do NOT start implementing during planning — that's Stage 4's job
  • Do NOT create tasks smaller than one meaningful commit
  • Do NOT create tasks larger than one sub-agent can handle in a single session
  • Do NOT skip codebase investigation — plans based on assumptions fail
  • Do NOT ignore the ADR's hypotheses — the plan must be designed to test them

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.